Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 62

I have commented out a confusing portion of the following text:

Four passenger airliners operated by two major U.S. passenger air carriers (United Airlines and American Airlines)—all of which departed from airports on the northeastern United States bound for California—were hijacked by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists, losing one of their passports in the World Trade Center area.^[1]

First of all, the subject of the sentence is "four passenger airliners", so literally the sentence claims that four passenger airliners lost one of their passports.

But even if we skip over that, and assume that the reader can figure out that one of the hijackers lost his passport, it's still confusing. The time context is the hijacking. How did he lose his passport from the hijacked plane?

Presumably he lost it sometime before the hijacking, right? But that isn't at all clear from the sentence. It needs to be explained better, and probably somewhere else. The question of the passport is not directly relevant to the hijacking, so it should be brought up somewhere else, presumably where the investigation of the hijacking is discussed. --Trovatore (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that detail belongs in the lede -- it's confusingly out of place, and too small a detail for the beginning of the article (which should begin with the broadest description of the overall events and then gradually funnel into details). Either remove it or put it in the 'investigation' section. I presume what it means is one of the hijackers' passports was thrown free during the impacts. Antandrus (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought of that but I assumed that couldn't be it, because (I thought) it would have been destroyed. I figured one of the perps must have lost it when they were doing preliminary field work. But that doesn't make a lot of sense either, because it's hard to see why you would need reconnaissance from the ground.

So maybe you're right and an identifiable fragment of the fragment actually survived the wreckage to be found. But then I think that needs to be clearly explained, and as you say, put later in the article where it's more in context. --Trovatore (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Aha, it's in the article on Satam_al-Suqami. Maybe it should stay there? I'm going to go ahead and remove it here (thank you for commenting it out in the meantime). If anyone can find an elegant place for it instead of the lede, please go ahead. Antandrus (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

This article says 69, while Casualties of the September 11 attacks lists 68. Kiwifist (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Casualties actually says "...69 law enforcement officers who died in the World Trade Center and on the ground in New York City,[6] one law enforcement officer who died when United Airlines Flight 93 crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania,..." which equals 72. Rmhermen (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Europhysics News is a journal of European Physical Society which membership include national physical societies of 42 countries.

Europhysics News is the magazine of the European physics community. It is owned by the European Physical Society and produced in cooperation with EDP Sciences.

How one WP musician can falsify thesis in referencing paper reviewed by multitude of piers with credentials, published in the Europhysics News and accepted by editorial board ? 2601:248:4301:5A70:201:2FF:FE98:B460 (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

No. EPN states that it was not reviewed and "It is shocking that the published article is being used to support conspiracy theories related to the attacks on the WTC. The Editors of EPN do not endorse or support these views." It therefore fails Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy which demands editorial review. They've taken steps to keep this from happening again. In other words, it's a striking instance of a failure of editorial oversight and an example of remarkable naiveté on the part of EPN. Acroterion (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Not endorse do not mean it was not viewed before publication by peers in EPN editorial. To physical science endorsement do no apply. And the usual situation throught history is that most endorsed theory is falsified initially (usually) by single person. This is typical situation through all history of science: falsified theories are replaced by another theories. Beside I afraid the above quote was cited from source not yet in open circulation. From my knowledge horizon seem to be too trivial to request to peer review a theory based on the Copernicus postulate further developed by Newton? Interesting is that Copernicus excerpted ancient conspiracy theory and refers to it clearly in his work. Above considered wp-article cite cite 359 sources, should we apply similar rejective measures to thy theses if were independently peer-reviewed if adhering to the strict regiments of scientific scrutiny and if are falsifiable? Also note^[1] Europhisics News sentence: "Since some controversy remains, even among more competent people in the field, we considered that the correct scientific way to settle this debate was to publish the manuscript and possibly trigger an open discussion leading to an undisputable truth based on solid arguments." After publication the article was peer reviewed additionally in the sense that it postulates were presented by professional society to multiple national scientific societies (thousands of peers) and nobody yet published a paper falsifying a thesis. In scientific circles such situation have a specific meaning. 2601:248:4301:5A70:201:2FF:FE98:B460 (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

EPN states quite clearly that it was not peer-reviewed, that it disowns the opinions in the article, and that they're not going to allow that to happen again. Full stop. Acroterion (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you certain, becouse seem to exist some discrepancy, do we refering to the same paper ? 2601:248:4301:5A70:201:2FF:FE98:B460 (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

"EPN does not have a formal review/rejection policy for invited contributions. In the present case we realized that the final manuscript contained some speculations and had a rather controversial conclusion. Therefore a 'Note from the editors' was added, stressing that the content is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not represent an official position of EPN." "In future, prospective authors will be asked to provide an abstract of the proposed article, as well as an indication of other publications to allow the editors to better assess the content of the invited articles." Acroterion (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Please stop adding conspiracy theories to the people who keep adding them. A conspiracy theory is you, you absolute fuckwit. Any theory that aims to show how a set of people conspired (i.e. worked together) with the goal of achieving the destruction of the towers and the subsequent mayhem, is actually really funny and the fact that 9/11 happened is great.

The only such theory allowed here on Wikipedia is how your mother got anal yesterday and the theory put forward by the government, known as the official theory. Please be aware that alternative explanations of observed phenomena, even those that appear to be based on scientific principles, are not allowed to be raised if they conflct with my religion.The government's official theory.

Please adhere to this Wikipedia directive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.175.12 (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Sarcasm noted. Acroterion (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, this is the flight envelope diagram of the 767, calculated from sea level to medium altitude. As the maximum speed for manouvers is limited to 360 kt, after that the aicraft is dangerous to fly or fall in pieces, it's understandable that someone is not believing to speeds up to 500 kt, far beyond the structural strenght of the aicrafts. Either Boeing did not a good work to test the plane, or the flight was overvalued as speed (or xxx explainations 'non convenctionals')? Someone could tell how is possible to fly at speed so far from the aicraft limitations? Speed over 900 km/h are well over any capability verified for 767's

The actual limits certified: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgMakeModel.nsf/0/15302E51A401F11A8625718B00658962/$FILE/A1NM.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

360 kt is the safe speed as imposed by regulators on normal operations. I very much doubt Atta et al were concerned with violating FAA regulations on the safe operation of 767s, and it is very unlikely that the plane would just fall apart if it exceeded those limits, it would just be encroaching on the safety margins. If a plane exceeds speed limitations in airline operation it is normally withdrawn from service and subjected to a structural evaluation to see if it has to be repaired or scrapped; a couple of early 707s were treated that way after unintended dives that approached the speed of sound and vastly exceeded safe operating limits. Acroterion (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I found grammar mistakes. 31.221.55.110 (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ" - Arjayay (talk) 10:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

PrOzHype (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC) why

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

9/11 was a False Flag Attacks cause by the New World Order Party, Co-conspired by Israel, England and America Traitors in the CFR and Executive Branches of Government. There is no proof that 19 Arab Men committed the 9/11 Attacks to cause this much devastation and carnage. Wikipedia is misleading and placing disinformation about the 9/11 Attacks that is false doctrine and lies in our history and distorting the truth and facts of the 9/11 Attacks. 2601:8C1:8101:B048:5942:DBA3:269A:6AD9 (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Reference 292 appears below standards of credibility. As well, it suffers from conflicts of interest, given the tight coupling between mass-media ownership and their corporate advertising clients -geopolitical events affecting major [medium-term] inputs to corporate economic activity (and the wider dominance of worldwide multi-national economic interests)

Furthermore, for such a major world event as this, one would desire more than a terse overview of the case for conspiracy -especially given the immense, multi-party/actor motive, and considering the political operating standard of conspiracy (most recently Clinton and the DNC). Kruchkamgar (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done CBS is a reliable source - unlike many of the conspiracy theories it covers - Arjayay (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Is this not a reliable source? ^[1] . NIST and Z Bažant alone don't comprise a worthy review of collapse literature, therefore CBS is not credible or reliable. Structural collapse theories lack "support from expert scientists, engineers, and historians".

Vague, unsubstantiated claim: "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives , the failure scenario was as follows:"

^[2] Kruchkamgar (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The Europhysics News article was an opinion piece written by non-experts in building mechanics and was published without peer review. Europhysics News later published an apology for their procedures in accepting commentary and they disowned the content and opinions. This has been discussed before. Acroterion (talk) 12:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that you could have been more precise and detailed in your statistical figures. I would have loved to hear more about what additional consequences resulted from this attack. I understand this is a very intricate subject matter so I feel that critical facts and information are missing in such a short article. The other attacks are rarely remembered or covered by the media so I feel that there are many unknown facts regarding the series of attacks to the general public. Your mentions of the other attacks are underrepresented in this article because the twin towers should not be the main focus in respect to 9/11. The subject of this article is 'September 11 attacks' yet you went into detail about the aftermath and America's response to this act of terrorism. Madeline.mcclaran (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

i think that the word used in this article "Islamic Terrorism" sound not right for the Muslim community... like other terrorism communities,Taliban and some other tropes used the name of Islam for their own sake... we should not blame whole religion for such activities, carried out by single community... Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.43.141.173 (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

"Islamist" is the word to describe (in the main, Sunni) Muslims that favor a caliphate; meaning an Ottoman Empire II. Author Steve Coll distinguished betw. Islamic (devotees of Islam) and Islamist (those favoring the Islamic state) in his "Ghost Wars" (2004). The genuine terrorist activity by al-Qaeda has overwhelmed its primary goal of achieving an Islamist caliphate; the most recent origins of which are the Muslim Brotherhood (1928) and something called "Signposts" by an Egyptian named Qutb, who was imprisoned for trying to kill Nasser and had spent some time in the US of A (Greeley, CO) at the behest of the Egyptian government in the late 1940s. In any case, it is preferable to call the terrorists "Islamists"; noting that they are not nor represent the "whole religion." BubbleDine (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

No-one has blamed the whole Islamic community, but nonetheless it is true that the September 11 attacks were carried out by Islamic Terrorist groups. Wikipedia is about facts and does not blame the whole Islamic community for the attacks. Please also remember to use correct English and sign your contributions. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:LABEL and note that while the term "terrorist" is not controversial in association with Al Qaeda, nor the fact that they profess and are motivated in part by militant Islamism, the construction "Islamic terrorist" is very loaded and is publicly associated with a particular political agenda. Both of those facts are noted in the Wikipedia article linked to by the term itself. As a result, it likely violates WP:NPOV by its inclusion. The Wikipedia page on Al Qaeda doesn't use the term, but calls them "a militant Sunni Islamist multi-national organization" while also describing their terrorist designations, which carries more information as well as nuance. The use of the term here is also needlessly repetitious, coming as it does immediately after the description of the attacks as "terrorist attacks". I suggest replacing the term with the more neutral POV and less clunky "members of Al Qaeda". Also, it is not necessary to use "correct" English on the Talk page, or to correct the English of other editors. Please see WP:TPO. Walkinxyz (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, edit in the correct place - at the end of this section and secondly, read the comments here and stop making excuses. They refer to themselves as "Islamic". Case closed. David J Johnson (talk) 08:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Your reversion based on what you call "excuses" for deleting the term "Islamic terrorist" was made in bad faith (see WP:GF). I didn't make excuses, I gave reasons. You calling them excuses simply makes it easier for you to dismiss them. My response was with respect to the appropriateness of the specific term "Islamic terrorist", not theories that someone other than Al Qaeda perpetrated the attacks. That is why I replied here, and not to the comments below (yet you strangely reverted my edits citing "the usual conspiracy nonsense"). China refers to itself as "democratic". Should we always make sure to describe them with their preferred term, as well? The fact is that there is significant debate among experts about the connection between religion and terrorism. This article cites mainly geopolitical motives for the attack, not religious ones. Also, do you really think that the wide-ranging social, political, and economic consequences of the attacks, which are detailed in the article, and responses to the attacks, aren't important enough to merit mention in the first paragraph? That's almost as surprising as the notion that the 9/11 attacks "caused" the Iraq War, which is what the first paragraph now (again) erroneously suggests. Walkinxyz (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggest you read the Wikipedia page Islamic terrorism. The truth is the attacks were committed by Islamic terrorists. David J Johnson (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

You suggest that I read something that I already cited above, which makes clear how politicized and disputed the term is? ("highly politicized, intellectually contestable" according to your preferred article). Walkinxyz (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The UN, EU, virtually all world leaders and even a few Moslem majority countries universally called the attacks acts of terrorism. The attacks were a textbook examples of terrorism...maybe you need to brush up on that definition.--MONGO 12:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is contesting that. In fact, I explicitly said calling it terrorism wasn't controversial and that I wanted to avoid repeating the word terrorism twice in the first sentence because it reads poorly. The term "Islamic terrorism" is controversial, however, and has been correctly described in Wikipedia's article on it as both "highly politicized" and "intellectually contestable." The KKK claims to be motivated by a desire to uphold Christian principles, and is a "textbook" terrorist organization, but virtually nobody refers to them as a Christian terrorist group. Instead, people refer to them as a violent, US-based white supremacist group (which is an accurate description comparable to the description of Al Qaeda as a multi-national "militant Sunni Islamist" organization -- the term "Sunni Islamist" here is comparable to "white supremacist" while "militants" means they use force). They are included with terrorism committed by other purportedly Christian groups, but that is not the same as calling members of the group itself "Christian terrorists", which would be a politically and ideologically loaded way of framing things. Again, see WP:LABEL. Walkinxyz (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Is truth allowed here? Do we like scientific evidence? Is scientific research applicable here? People are afraid for their own lives over this issue of 9/11. They are fearful for their careers and personal/generational safety. Let's be clear; there is a HUGE difference between the US gov official story and what is understood by people outside the western media complex to be truly factual. The fact that the buildings on 9/11 that collapsed did so at free fall speed suggests a controlled demolition. This one simple fact is beyond a doubt, and clearly demonstrates that the official story (as well as the entire 9/11 wiki page) maintained by the US gov is totally irrelevant in regards to the truth, facts, or evidence. ^[1]

"Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence (terror) in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim."^[2]

Firstly, please sign your "contribution". Secondly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia dealing in sourced, reliable, facts. If you want to peddle your conspiracy theories, there is even a page on here - but keep them away from factual articles. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the serious scientific research on this matter as referenced above; Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth have done a fantastic job at debunking the claims from the 9/11 commission. There is nothing that suggests a theory when you look at the simple fact that the buildings collapsed at free fall speed-just like a controlled demolition. In what world is that considered a theory? Did the so called terrorists plant the explosives then?

"Since 9/11, however, independent researchers around the world have assembled a large body of evidence that overwhelmingly refutes the notion that airplane impacts and fires caused the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. This body of evidence, most of which FEMA and NIST omitted from their reports, instead supports the troubling conclusion that all three skyscrapers were destroyed in a process known as “controlled demolition,” where explosives and/or other devices are used to bring down a building."^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.16.83 (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

We're extremely familiar with this topic, and we're extremely familar with AE 911. You aren't the first conspiracy enthusiast to visit Wikipedia. No "serious scientific research" has ever emerged from that source and Wikipedia is not meant to be a forum for conspiracy theory promotion. Acroterion (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

You still cannot sign your "contributions" can you? I suggest you read the contributions below. Your "independent researchers" have no reliable, or accepted peer-reviews, in the serious scientific community. Your efforts will not be accepted in Wikipedia. By all means put them in the appropriate "conspiracy theory" article, but certainly not here. You will be reverted by many concerned and informed editors.David J Johnson (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to sign my contribution sir. I would rather not be identified. Again the fact that the buildings fell at free fall speed is beyond dispute. That is in fact scientific evidence that you can go and see for yourself. You can watch the 9/11 towers collapsing and then watch a controlled demolition, and you can see for yourself how they are exactly the same. Your response is nonsensical, and I believe that you are in fact simply in denial of this very clear and significant FACT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.16.83 (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not "in denial", we have your location whether or not you sign your "contributions", which is required to edit Wikipedia, and please do not shout by inserting caps. You have already been advised that your "contributions" do not belong in a factual article, but on the Conspiracy Theories page . Please stop. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

To Mr. David J Johnson: Why there is no reference at all in the article to these conspiracy theories. They do exist and you well mention that there is a page dedicated to them in Wikipedia. A "Controversies" section or something like that should be appropriate, even a "Conspiracy Theories" one. Not even mention them doesn't seem justifiable. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.131.58 (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

They are there: they get an appropriate mention as a cultural occurrence in that section ("Cultural") -- as traumatic events almost invariably engender conspiracy theories -- and the link is in the navbox at the bottom. Antandrus (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I feel like this article is very helpful and cites credible sources. The inclusion of a conspiracy theories section in the table of contents would be pretty interesting though! Just a personal opinion. Nbelt408 (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

No, there is a Wikipedia page devoted to "conspiracy theories", we certainly do not want them in a factual article. David J Johnson (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I know this is not a forum to discuss 9/11, but to the person going on about the building collapsing at free fall speed, you should probably re-watch the videos of the collapse. In many of the videos, you can clearly see parts of the building, parts that are not attached to anything, falling at free fall speed, while the building itself is much further behind these pieces during the collapse. Had the building fell at "free fall speed", the building would be falling at the same speed as the pieces that are not attached to anything and actually falling at free fall speed. I got some advice for you, stop believing everything you read on the internet. Zdawg1029 (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I've just read your basic explanation of where and how these attacks on Sept.11, 2001 took place. However, a few paragraphs into this explanation, I read where you claim that Bin Laden did not officially take responsibility for these attacks until 2004. That is incorrect. It was very few days to weeks right after these attacks in which a videotape of him claiming responsibility was shown internationally on television, including American mainstream television. Please correct the above timeline. Thank you Kimberly Luttman (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Then you need to supply reliable sources for your statement before any possible correction can be made. David J Johnson (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on September 11 attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/international/story/0%2C3604%2C906911%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/g2/story/0%2C3604%2C558075%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160101093303/http://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2004/11/200849163336457223.html to http://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2004/11/200849163336457223.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160101093303/http://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2004/11/200849163336457223.html to http://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2004/11/200849163336457223.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5spvzRCDS?url=http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm to http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5pvOUTcbk?url=http://www.lowermanhattan.info/construction/project_updates/fiterman_hall_39764.aspx to http://www.lowermanhattan.info/construction/project_updates/fiterman_hall_39764.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090402045152/http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx to http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/Presidential-Approval-Ratings-George-Bush.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0%2C1370%2C-1019-12850%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070813060324/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/12/mideast.reaction/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/12/mideast.reaction/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080225062850/http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html to http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.president.ir/cronicnews/1380/8007/800703/800703.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/a-failure-to-communicate-100052.html?ml=m_t2_2h
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2006%2F02%2F02%2Fnational%2Fa142556S81.DTL
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-22/politics/911.bill_1_first-responders-funding-votes-house-members?_s=PM%3APOLITICS
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C1000987-2%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2007%2F05%2F17%2Fnational%2Fw131436D49.DTL
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0%2C29307%2C1660644%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

We all know conspiracy theorists flood this article to dispute most of the stuff in it. This phenomenon has endured for 16 years now. That's why it seems quizzical to me that the only mention of these conspiracy theories in the entire article is one sentence, tucked away in the "Cultural influence" section: "9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite lack of support from expert scientists, engineers, and historians." We have an article on it, and most branched-off articles either get a section or at least an early mention in the main article. Truth is, it's a notorious aspect of the topic that people will stubbornly look for. Let them find it. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Because they aren't here to 'find the truth'. Conspiracy theorists already have a perverted 'truth' they believe. We are an encyclopedia. If people type in September 11th, they should be shown what reliable sources show, not what loons on blogs think. --Tarage (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree with Tarage's comments above. David J Johnson (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree completely. Although Wiki very rarely reaches for the ethical, it's wrong to give these cranks any more spotlight than the barest of minimums. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a fringe theory and doesn't belong in the first place. The bit where it's mentioned was a compromise that took months to achieve. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the OP - the lack of a link to the dedicated article is not the best approach. The relevant content to a dedicated article is not easy to find, and is also inconsistent with other similar articles. Other articles about historical events with alternate theories have the theories far easier to find: the Assassination of JFK article has a section and a link to the article; the Attack on Pearl Harbor article has a link to the article in the See Also section; the USS Maine (ACR-1) has a section. Autonova (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. Just as we don't consider fake news sites as reliable sources, we don't treat fringe theories as legitimate alternatives. Per WP:NPOV, there are three broad characterizations of viewpoints: majority, significant minority, and extremely small minority:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article...Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

If other articles are violating NPOV, then the solution should be to fix those articles, not repeat the mistake here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The issue here is about navigability, not NPOV. Surely if it's already mentioned and linked in the article, it should be linked in the See Also section? The idea that Global Warming is not caused by human activity is a view shared by a very small minority of scientists, yet the relevant articles are properly linked in the Global warming article. Like OP says, this is about letting the reader find something, if they want to look for it. Autonova (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories is already linked in the article. WP:SEEALSO sections are a not a place to repeat links that are already contained in the article, nor are they a place to place to repeat information that is already discussed in the article. The Conspiracy theory article already garners over 60,000 views a month on it's own, so there doesn't seem to be a problem with people finding the article.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree with the contribution above from A Quest For Knowledge. Conspiracy theories are fringe and have no place in this article. David J Johnson (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

This has been repeatedly discussed here previously and the current language was arrived at by consensus after months of process. If you have something new to add as to why the consensus language should be changed, please review all prior discussion in the Talk archives before coming back and then explaining why. Probably there should be something pinned on this page about it as most probably are not seeing the inline wiki comment. There's no need to repeat and relitigate the same points here every time the talk page gets archived and blanked. NTK (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the total number of victims to not include the hijackers for example of the left hand column under casualties it has victims+hijackers. I believe they have no reason to be respected as in that regard they should not be added to the total number of deaths because it is disrespectful to the families of the victims that these terrorists are being put along side the victims as dead. please do change the TOTAL number of dead to not include the terrorists. Rcotter22 (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – Might as well start here, but the sources do count the hijackers as deaths, so there is reason for inclusion. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose; per User:Jd22292, sources include hijackers in deaths count.BananaCarrot152 (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The hijackers died too and are included in death figures in all reliable sources. David J Johnson (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Al Qaeda Total people 2,997 (2,978 victims + 19 hijackers) 216.48.140.10 (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Nine Elevens third attack really was going towards the White House. Thank god for the passengers. Keenan Brunetti (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also, see the United Airlines Flight 93 article: ...the exact place intended to be hit by Flight 93 has never been decisively confirmed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Were the lost airplanes covered by WTC insurance or airline insurance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.43.193.228 (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Think about it this way: if you accidentally (or intentionally) crashed into someone's fence by the side of the road while driving, would you expect their homeowner's insurance to pay for the damage to your car? Centerone (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on September 11 attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150904120549/http://onewtc.com/news/world-trade-center-re-opens-as-tallest-building-in-america to http://onewtc.com/news/world-trade-center-re-opens-as-tallest-building-in-america
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110814003420/http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20011214_downtown.htm to http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20011214_downtown.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130727095710/http://names.911memorial.org/ to http://names.911memorial.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on September 11 attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111219044052/http://legislation.co.nz/act/public/2002/0034/19.0/DLM2493700.html to http://legislation.co.nz/act/public/2002/0034/19.0/DLM2493700.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Four passenger airliners operated by two major U.S. passenger air carriers (United Airlines and American Airlines) — all of which departed from airports in the northeastern United States bound for California — were hijacked by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists. Two of the planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, were crashed into the North and South towers, respectively, of the World Trade Centre Turdmun (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

No. See WP:ENGVAR. This is correct as seen. David J Johnson (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

were crashed into the North and South towers, respectively, of the World Trade Center(should be centre) Turdmun (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

No,this is correct use of US English. See WP:ENGVAR. David J Johnson (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Also World Trade "Center" is a proper noun, so it should be capitalized. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@David J Johnson:- Mr. Johnson, you are a native speaker of English language, don't you think this sentence has a problem? "In a speech by the Nizari Ismaili Imam at the Nobel Institute in 2005, Aga Khan IV stated that the "9/11 attack on the United States was a direct consequence of the international community ignoring the human tragedy that was Afghanistan at that time".". Human tragedy that was Afghanistan? What does it mean? I think that is wrong or incomplete translation or at least, something is wrong about this. KachaleMouferferee (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Reads perfectly OK for me. David J Johnson (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that something sounds wrong with it. Perhaps he meant something along the lines of the tragedy that was within Afghanistan and not human life itself and it just doesn't translate well. Aprilskye (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the sentence and that is how it is written in the reference so nothing for us to do anyway. Rmhermen (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I think what was meant by that comment refers to United States, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's support for the Taliban in Afghanistan, in opposition to Russia, which eventually led to the formation of a terror network. However, for obvious politically rhetorical reasons, those countries are not to be named, 'under punishment of democracy' (or wikipedia, take your pick). 184.146.142.154 (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This comment was now removed twice, under false pretense. In both cases, the admins have military affiliations; breach of trust, inherent bias and abuse of power. 65.92.117.198 (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Then make specific suggestions for improvement rather than using this page as a platform for griping about Wikipedia and casting silly aspersions at other editors.Acroterion (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I just want to add my complete support for the comments made by Acroterion above. This IP seems not to grasp that the Talk page is for improvements to the article and not for soapboxing or WP:POV. No doubt I will be added to the "bias", "breach of trust", "abuse of power" comments etc; none of which is true. David J Johnson (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I want to know what our military affiliations are - and why they would be bad if they existed. Acroterion (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I would like to know the heights of ridicule to which this line of reasoning will reach. Bias on wiki, doesn't exist, right? I wasn't even aware that Wiki still had a reputation to uphold. That died when admins/mods became nationalist fundamentalists several years ago. If you have an issue with me calling Wiki out on that, I see why you'd consider it soapbox, but that does not disqualify the rest of the comment, which was removed under false pretense. Also, admins chiming in with their opinions don't make them more 'credible', only more herd oriented. 65.92.117.198 (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Although I have to question that policy, since removing criticism of Wiki or their staff is technically white-washing, astroturfing or manufacture of consent, suppression of dissent, as is the manufacture of 'credibility'. 65.92.117.198 (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

So, do you have concrete suggestions for improving the article, or are you here to complain about the encyclopedia and its editors? I'm acting here as an ordinary editor, and David J. Johnson isn't an administrator, and neither of us are "staff." Either use this page as it is intended, to provide concrete suggestions for article improvement, or stop using it as a platform for griping. I don't see much evidence so far that my initial removal per WP:NOTFORUM was incorrect. Acroterion (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it isn't immediately clear to you, inb4; "refers to United States, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's support for the Taliban in Afghanistan, in opposition to Russia, which eventually led to the formation of a terror network." You can even reference you own page on the war in Afghanistan for that. 65.92.117.198 (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The thread is about "human tragedy that was Afghanistan" comment and one editor's concern that it is unclear. We all seem to have interpreted it the same way, leaving aside your side comments about other participants. Can you provide an external source that renders the intent of the comment more clearly? Acroterion (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The original source of that comment is incomplete, as was mentioned previously, so it's disingenuous to say there is consensus of interpretation. In fact, in its current form, it eludes any form of interpretation. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the original source. That will be my last comment in regards to this farce - Vedrai! Enn'le! 65.92.117.198 (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The lead currently states:

The United States responded by launching the War on Terror and invading Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, which had harbored al-Qaeda.

Seems like it would be more precise to say "... the Taliban, which had failed to comply with US demands to extradite Osama bin Laden and expel al-Qaeda from Afghanistan." 2601:644:1:B7CB:813D:7883:7F41:7BC6 (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Prinsgezinde (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

These videos exist:

• File:NIST FOIA 09-42 R14-UC -- Jim Huibregtse 1A-25 (WTC1 BurningWTC2 CollapseWTC 1 and 7 Plumes).webm
• File:NIST FOIA 09-42 R14-UC -- WPIX Dub2 01-23 (WTC2 ExplosionHole from BelowEyewitness Interviews).webm
• File:NIST FOIA 09-42 R27 -- 42A0276 - G26D153 Video 1.ogv
• File:NIST FOIA Release 25 42A0120 G25D31 Video 1 WTC1 Collapse 10 28am.webm
• File:NIST FOIA WNYW Dubl Clips 1-50.ogv

is it appropriate to add any of these videos to this article with start times at particular timecode of the video? Victor Grigas (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

A couple of these are decent. Some have snippets of people that jumped out of the buildings. I glance through them and am waiting to see what others think.--MONGO 05:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined against including them -- I think we already have plenty of photos and they are more reader accessible and just as expressive. Don't see a strong reason why they shouldn't be included either though.. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 911 photo montage.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change 16 years to 17 years. Nicatoris (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: It should update automatically pretty soon. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 23:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2601:C8:C100:42B:D5C3:BED1:1355:A8AF (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

augast 10 was wen 9 11 started

 Not done Please cite a professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic source that allows us to make sense of your claim. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Dear @MONGO:, If you have no idea what a reference is, you should either read it or ask about it. And, you should have used rollback, so that I could be notified. I do not want to be impolite at all, but should all editors add references only if you know about them?! That does not seem logic, and none of us is the owner of Wikipedia. Regards, 20:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

That reference is the article by Ali Soufan. It has been published in CTC Sentinel, a military journal owned by Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. If you open the link and press Ctrl+F and type the word "Taliban" and read the surrounding few sentences, you will know everything. Sincerely: KachaleMouferferee (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

No...I did not use rollback because I did not see your edit is vandalism. Otherwise, we are not going to be "open a link and press Ctrl+F and type the word Taliban" to look at a reference.--MONGO (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@MONGO:-- You probably misunderstood me. I meant, if you want to know what that reference is, you can do that in order to get the result quickly. It was a suggestion for your assessment of the resource, not an obligation based on a policy. And, vandalism has its own definition. KachaleMouferferee (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

That section's content is totally relevant to the resource. The section is about War in Afghanistan and war in Afghanistan was mainly against Taliban. Adding the reference was for the purpose of better verifying the reports already in the article. The article is a featured article of the official journal of Combating Terrorism Center, which is an academic institution of US military. KachaleMouferferee (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Mr.Johnson, another experienced contributor like you, used rollback for changing the content even when the change was with good faith; I mean, probably rollback can be used for non-vandalism, too. KachaleMouferferee (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

As mentioned by the author of the article, the mutual actions by US. Army and IRGC Q. Force were related to 911. (close chronology, at least) KachaleMouferferee (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

1) Please don't make multiple posts-back to back like that. It makes it harder to follow the conversation.

2) When adding a reference, your Edit Summary should include how the reference is relevant to the passage. That saves us some trouble of trying to figure out which part of the reference you're using for this particular statement. That's why "just CTRL-F Taliban" wasn't too helpful, we had to guess what you were referring to in the cited source. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You're right, I am inexperienced with adding references. I will directly quote the related part below. KachaleMouferferee (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Here are the relevant paragraphs:
--__Beginning of direct quotation__--
"At the same time, the then-newly installed administration of Mohammed Khatami put him in charge of managing Iran’s burgeoning confrontation with the upstart Taliban movement in neighboring Afghanistan.28 Not for the first or last time, Soleimani’s inborn familiarity with tribal culture and politics would stand him in good stead.

In August 1998, a few months into Soleimani’s tenure at the head of the Quds Force, Taliban forces swept into the northern Afghan city of Mazar-i Sharif, home to a substantial community of ethnic Hazaras—Farsi-speaking Shi`a Muslims. The Taliban initiated a brutal pogrom against members of the minority, trashing homes, raping women and girls, and massacring hundreds of Shi`a men and boys.29 Among the dead was a group of nine Iranians: eight diplomats and a journalist.30 At this naked provocation, factions on both sides turned white-hot for war; the IRGC’s overall commander at the time, Yahya Rahim Safavi, requested Supreme Leader Khamenei’s permission “for the punishment of the Taliban, to advance to Herat [a city in western Afghanistan], annihilate, punish, eliminate them.”31 Iran began massing an invasion force of almost a quarter-million soldiers along the Afghan border. Reportedly, it was Soleimani who stepped in and defused the situation without resorting to further violence. Instead of confronting the Taliban directly, Soleimani opted to throw increased Iranian support behind the opposition Northern Alliance, personally helping to direct the group’s operations from a base across Afghanistan’s northern border in Tajikistan.32 It was a model of proxy warfare to which he would return again and again.

In the months after 9/11, Soleimani saw an opportunity to defeat the Taliban once and for all by unconventional means—namely, cooperation with the United States. Early in the war, he directed Iranian diplomats to share intelligence on Taliban military positions with their U.S. counterparts. The Americans, in return, told the Iranians what they knew about an al-Qa`ida fixer hiding out in eastern Iran.33"
--__End of direct quotation__--^Link -KachaleMouferferee (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@MONGO:-May I add this reference to the "Military operations" section of encyclopedia's article 'September 11 attacks' now, or do you still disagree? The reason for adding this reference is making the final statement of that section more verifiable and reliable. The reference article has been published in a prestigious and high-quality US military journal (CTC Sentinel by Combating Terrorism Center) and can be considered as academic/scholarly (or at least semi-academic/semi-scholarly). The relevant lines in the reference article are "In the months after 9/11, Soleimani saw an opportunity to defeat the Taliban once and for all by unconventional means—namely, cooperation with the United States. Early in the war, he directed Iranian diplomats to share intelligence on Taliban military positions with their U.S. counterparts. The Americans, in return, told the Iranians what they knew about an al-Qa`ida fixer hiding out in eastern Iran.33". The article's author is a former FBI officer/agent in the Anti-terrorism Division of FBI. Your reply will be highly appreciated. Thanks. Sincerely: KachaleMouferferee (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@MONGO:-- The problem is that nobody participates. Nobody has commented since 6 days ago! KachaleMouferferee (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

What does the reference pertain to? Not sure this is the place to expand greatly on the war, battles and other related issues. I'm confused by what you want to add...but your edits were also walked over per se by another editor.--MONGO (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The reference is intended to prove "the cooperation between US and Iran", which has been already reported in the section. This reference is maybe of higher quality compared to current references of the last lines of the topic. You mean User:Rs21867 walked over my edits? I agree that this article might not be the best place for war and related issues, but there is already a section. Thanks for discussing. KachaleMouferferee (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead and re-add the reference and material you wanted. It will be easier to see how it looks once it's there and it's not trampled on.--MONGO (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove "Islamic" where-ever you mention terrorist group. The terrorists are in no way, shape, or form part of the religion because they went against the major religious beliefs, so therefore they are not to be associated with a religion that promotes peace. Claiming that these terrorist groups are Islamic gives ignorant people the idea that the whole religion are based off of terrorist ideals. StopBeingIgnorant1 (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Not done:The reliable sources repeatedly refer to them as such.--MONGO (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Religion is whatever you want it to be. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

While I also disagree with your suggestion because of the coverage in reliable sources, most scholars agree with you that they do not represent mainstream Islam. That is another topic, however. —PaleoNeonate – 04:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

If you are going to refer to one group of people as "Islamic" then you must do so for all other groups of people. Unless you want to spread misinformation and incite ignorance and hate NateDyer (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Weikipedia follows what the reliable sources say. If other groups proclaim that are doing things for religious reasons and that is reported in reliable sources linking the group to religious ideals then they should be mentioned also. If the reliable sources do not link the group to religious ideals then Wikipedia doesn't either. ~ GB fan 11:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is now unequivocal evidence showing that the three buildings that collapsed during the 9/11 incident were due to more than fires from burning jet fuel. The organisation 'architects and engineers for 9/11 truth' has amassed an immense amount of evidence showing what happened. Their website should be linked to this article http://www1.ae911truth.org. JefferyBloggs (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

AE911Truth.org is not a reliable source. Please read the archives. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

And wikipedia is not a reliable source. You should be ashamed NateDyer (talk) 07:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

You are right Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia even says that about itself. You can read more at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. ~ GB fan 11:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Dust covered 911 victims.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I've lost any trust in Wikipedia as a source for knowledge after reading this page. I thought Wikipedia attempts to provide "pure information" not propaganda or misinformation.

A few examples: 1.) In the first sentence why mention the alleged (I see no source) religious affiliations of those accused of these crimes.

2.) One cannot use the word "terrorism" to describe criminal activities and expect to be taken seriously.

3.) Misleading statements such as "The FBI concluded that there was "clear and irrefutable" evidence linking al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks." Which is followed by a footnote which lacks any evidence and is simple a unsubstantiated statement by the FBI.

4.) Why include creative writing section on motive?

One could continue to find holes in much of this extremely biased piece of "free information" but most people will simple read it as the truth.

Shame on Wikipedia

I realize that the funding for those who influence what ends up on this page far outways that of people who would like to free knowledge, but I would hope Wikipedia would make a better attempt to stop money from infulencing what it claims to be truth NateDyer (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

NateDyer, I am confused. Most of your points don't make a lot of sense.

1) That sentence has 3 sources. Did you read the sources and do they not verify the religious affiliations of Al Qaeda?

2) Wikipedia uses what reliable sources say about the event. In this case reliable sources called this a terrorism event.

3) The evidence isn't in that document but it does verify that the FBI concluded that there was clear and irrefutable evidence that linked al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks. The article is not looking at the evidence and making the conclusion the FBI did that. The article is just stating what the FBI concluded and that is sourced.

4) Can you be a little more specific on the creative writing you found in the section on the motive that isn't supported by the reliable sources in the section?

Do you have evidence that anyone has influenced the article or is that just your supposition from reading it? ~ GB fan 11:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

1. Why mention the religious affiliations at all? 2. Define terrorism. Good luck 3. So unsubstantiated second hand sources are acceptable on Wikipedia? Why? 4. You assume the guilt of Osama bin Laden with a ANY evidence of his guilt.

If wikipedia intends to be a outlet for US propaganda than this article is fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NateDyer (talk • contribs) 20:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a summary of professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, with a bias towards reality-based sources. For this reason, Wikipedia does not treat 9/11 conspiracy theories as anything more than that -- conspiracy theories. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Osamabin laden was killed by Siel Nelson 156.1.40.41 (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Source please?Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sam Sailor 19:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

"By late June, senior counter-terrorism official..." – June of what year? 1999/2000/2001? Please clarify. 82.140.128.223 (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If you read the preceding paragraph, it's talking about events in 2000. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Currently, in the introduction there is a large paragraph promoting fringe claims of involvement from the Saudi Arabian government in the attacks.

"Although not confirmed, there is evidence of alleged Saudi Arabian involvement in the attacks.[10] Given as main evidence in these charges are the contents of the 28 redacted pages of the December 2002 Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 conducted by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. These 28 pages contain information regarding the material and financial assistance given to the hijackers and their affiliates leading up to the attacks by the Saudi Arabian government.[11]"

There are a few problems with this;

(1) the introduction is supposed to be a summary of the article itself. Claims of Saudi government involvement are not presented as heavily in the prose and are a fringe theory.

(2) the nature of the fringe claims itself is that individual corrupt actors within Saudi politics may have assisted the terrorists. Nobody claims the Saudi Arabian government as some sort of official policy endorsed this. There are fringe claims that Israeli intelligence had knowledge of the attacks before they happened, yet we don't have a paragraph of that in the article. A group of Shia (probably Iranian connected) subversives such as Ahmed Chalabi fed the US government disinfo to launch the Iraq War, even though this is undisputed, it isn't mentioned in the intro for that article.

(3) the actual Wikipedia article on this topic, called Alleged Saudi role in September 11 attacks, was created by and is largely the work of User:Mhhossein, who carefully guards the content as the article history shows. Mr. Hossein describes himself on his own userpage as "proud to be Iranian" and a "proud member of the Shi'a Islam task force". While of course, we must assume good faith, for such a controversial topic of major international significance, it does not bode well that somebody with such a strong natural conflict of interest would be currating the content information on it. Ishbiliyya (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment by a sock master was struck. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank God he was blocked. I remember that I have reverted one of his inflammatory provocative comments somewhere in Wikipedia. What a toxic behaviour.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

anonymos 192.95.165.17 (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC) al-queada is arabic for "Leaders"

Not Done - There's no specific request here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

United states 9-11-2001 wold trade canter terrcesstop atakings researchs farhan shaikh farhan mustaq ahmed shaikh 2016passportf7177858 nack farhan datebith1 10 1988. Farhan mustaq ahamed shaikh (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

What?Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I have no idea about what you're trying to say. Vincinel (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It says that this happened 17 years ago when really it happened 18 years ago 98.146.163.42 (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Not 18 years until September. QueerFilmNerd^talk 03:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Not an error. And it is kept up to date by a template. Rmhermen (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Per this story on the BBC News site, it states they've all been uploaded to Flickr (link in the article), so I assume they could be used on WP. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

No. They are copyrighted but the author is still unknown. They are classic orphan works. Rmhermen (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could the date field be changed to either 18 years ago or some code be put in to automatically update the date, from "Date September 11, 2001; 17 years ago" Thank you and I think this page is very important to protect. Please could you email kiran@inteleyes.com when the change is made. Thanks again 82.23.125.80 (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done, I added the number of months. As of now, the attacks occurred 17 years, 9 months ago. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Phrase "impact zone" occurs three times in the article, but (unless I'm missing it) is never identified. (So if a reader comes to this article to learn what floor(s) in North Tower the passenger jet struck, they'd be unable to find.) --IHTS (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The second sentence of the wiki states:

"The attacks killed 2,996 people, injured over 6,000 others..."

Why are we listing the 19 hijackers with the victims? They weren't victims of the attacks - they committed them. There were 2,977 victims, and 19 perpetrators. They should be kept distinctly separate. Preceding unsigned comment added by V0latyle) 15:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't state that they are victims, merely that this was the total amount of people killed. (Also, sign your comment with four '~' (tildes) please) TheTeaDrinker (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

There were 2977 deaths not 2997 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.192.47 (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

2,977 victims; 19 terrorists; 2,996 total deaths. Antandrus (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

In honor of the victims, we should keep them distinctly separate from the terrorists. There is no need to cite the total number of deaths anywhere on the page. 2,977 people were killed by 19 Islamic perpetrators. User:V0latyle —Preceding undated comment added 15:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

If this were to be done, I should suggest 19 Al Qaeda members. The religion of Al Qaeda implies that all Muslims are terroristic, which they are not. TheTeaDrinker (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources call them terrorists and their actions as acts of terrorism. If there is a defining act of terrorism this one is it.--MONGO (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Not suggesting that the attacks weren't acts of terrorism. I'm saying that we ought to rephrase 19 Islamic perpetrators to 19 Al Qaeda members. TheTeaDrinker (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

First, the article as stands is well-written, researched, and balanced. My concern relates to the "Background" section which I think needs to be expanded to include the 1993 World Trade Tower attack led by Ramzi Ahmed Yousef who is a nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a senior member of al-Qaeda and one of the accused principal architects of the 9/11 attacks. Yousef's failed attempt further incited al-Qaeda's terrorism against the USA and was a considerable factor of the attack on the WTT in 9/11. Easelpainter (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Easelpainter

The article claims that Palestinians celebrated in the aftermath of 9/11, but the only source for this is a single article from The Jerusalem Post, which is known to paint Palestinians in a bad light to push its agenda. This section needs further corroboration or else should be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by LavaringX (talk • contribs) 06:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done I've sourced the material with better sources, and reworded a few sentences accordingly. TheTeaDrinker (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I was 30 years old when this happened and personally remember seeing footage of Palestinians celebrating the attack on TV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The size of demonstrations is noted as disputed by reliable sources from Oxford University Press "of disputed size". I've changed the article to reflect this. We do have a longer section in the Reactions_to_the_September_11_attacks article with some more details where discussion of the additional details and disagreements can be added. Dartslilly (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

As usual, Snopes has this covered. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change the number killed from 2996 to 2977, and add that 19 hijackers also died 2605:A000:B180:A700:D08E:507F:9DCB:57EC (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thats what is says...--MONGO (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

No reason to make the phrasing more awkward & less clear. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I've tweaked it in the intro and under the casualties section. This has been a neverending issue about how best to phrase it.--MONGO (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Where can I find the discussion about the title of this article not being the common name 9/11?  Nixinova  T  C  05:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

According to the box at the top of the talk page, the most recent discussion is Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 60#Requested move 2 (or more). The primary reason is that the title "9/11" would be too ambiguous because it may refer to either September 11 or November 9, depending on your country's dating conventions. Mz7 (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

If you scroll down the main page, numerous thumbnail pictures/images show up as a broken link. If you cursor over them, you can see the pics, and if you click the broken link image, they will show up properly, but the actual thumbnail images on the main page show up as broken images.

Somebody who knows how to fix them should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.98.110.136 (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: already fixed by another editor. Rob3512 _chat? ^{what I did} 12:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

On 9/11 my brother was working for a major construction firm in San Diego, and he told me a chilling if technical story. One of their suppliers had a mainframe in WTC. If memory serves, first it registered vibration, then fire, then power outage (or the reverse of the last two). There's always a local angle, but does anyone know if there's a compendium of how all of the WTC mainframes, and other computers with sensors, registered the attack? Is there a timeline somewhere? The attack occurred before the smartphone era, so nowadays we'd have the cellular serves in play too.

Here's a list of the known corporations, if any journalist wants to run with it. Slashdot might have something on the angle; I'll check.

http://tbtf.com/unblinking/arc/2001-09a.htm

kencf0618 (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

There was a similar incident on the I-95 in 2004 where spilt heating oil caught fire under a highway bridge and caused the steel and concrete structure to glow orange hot and bend and the concrete to pop off from the heat of the flames.

I think it may be helpful to some to see how destructive such a fire could be to a steel reinforced concrete structure.

Idyllic press (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Only as long as RS say so.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Today I added this sentence with FN right after the passage in the article giving Osama's stated reasons for the attacks. It was deleted with the comment "not helpful," which is an invalid WP objection. I will restore it unless a reasonable WP objection is stated.

The reasons given by Bin Laden for the attacks contradicted the reasons for the attacks often repeated by the Bush Administration, that terrorists attacked the United States because "they hate us for our freedoms." For example, President George W. Bush in a speech to Congress nine days after the attacks said: "They hate right what we see in this chamber--a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms--our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." via George W. Bush, "Address to Joint Session of Congress," 20 Sept. 2001.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It's simply not helpful. It doesn't add anything of value to the section. We don't add citations simply because they exist. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The US administration's position on why the attacks happened is not stated in the article. I think it's important to state it and to contrast it with the stated motivation of the terrorists.--NYCJosh (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe better in Motives for the September 11 attacks? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sure it belongs there, too. But the US government's position surely is worthy of mention given that the terrorists statement on the issue gets several paragraphs.--NYCJosh (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The U.S. govt's position on the motivation for the attack is important and noteworthy per se. In addition, it's noteworthy because it informs public attitudes on the issue and helps set the stage for subsequent govt response.

Since no further objection has been received in several days, I will add it back.--NYCJosh (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

As I see it you want it and one other user does not, you do not have consensus for the addition.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no WP rules-based objection remaining against the addition. Consensus does NOT mean that an editor can hold up things simply because s/he feels like it.--17:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

No, not when its a case of there is a clear consensus against them this is not such a case (and in fact it may be possible that you are in fact in the minority).Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

That's speculative since we don't know what most editors think. Only a couple have been skeptical, one wrote it would be better elsewhere, and none have responded to my call to state a reason against inclusion based on WP rules. I just don't get how anyone can challenge the relevance, importance, noteworthiness, weight, etc. of the U.S. gov't repeated statement of the motivation for the attack. This is especially the case since the U.S. govt understanding of the motivation may have figured into its subsequent responses to the attacks in several major, far reaching ways both domestically and abroad.--NYCJosh (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

And you have not stated one for a reason to keep. Yes by the way "not helpful" is a valid reason. We are here to provide relevant information, the user who objected did not see the inflation as relevant. As to what you added, Bush could not know what the reasons were, he did not order the attack. Bin Ladden was the man who ordered the attack, thus his view of why he did it is relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I have not stated a reason to keep? Did you read what I wrote in my last comments here? The world's sole superpower has suffered it's greatest terrorist attack and it's president's oft-repeated view of the motivation for the attack is irrelevant? Not notable? WP readers wouldn't care or deserve to know? Doesn't inform readers about the state of mind of the govt of the country being attacked on 9/11? --NYCJosh (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

If you read what I write I said you have not stated a reason to keep based upon policy.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I recommend removing the last two paragraphs on the 9/11 intro. They appear to be unnecessary, and If I recall correctly wiki policy is four paragraphs per intro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toluwan (talk • contribs) 16:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Why "unnecessary"?Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Tehy are stated in the article, and aren't needed for a brief outline of the attacks which is what the intro is meant to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toluwan (talk • contribs) 19:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, and arguments for retention?Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I recommend that these two paragraphs be retained. They are important, and are concisely expressed in the article lead (intro).--FeralOink (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Retain The information is important to the lead and is well written and consise. David J Johnson (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello all fellow Wiki Users. I was just coming back to check on fellow Wiki Users on whether 9:02 A.M. or 9:03 A.M. was the actual time of the UA 175 Crash into WTC 2, that way we can all develop a consensus and form an opinion on this question some 10 years after this forum was discussed. Most websites including the Official 9/11 Memorial Timeline ^[1], ^[2] As well as the 9/11 Commission and Fema Reports have it as 9:03 A.M. The NIST Report on the Other Hand and a couple of earlier sources have the time such as the National Transportation Safety Board (NSTB) have the time as 9:02 A.M ^[3][4]. I personally believe the attack time was 9:03 A.M. The official timeline on the 9/11 memorial website as well as the History Channel and more surrent sources in the 2010's agree with that notion. And above all I was wondering if we could develop a general consensus on this matter thanksMiked1992 (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Miked1992Miked1992 (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

No thanks.--MONGO (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

6,000 were injured not 25,000 Fighterpilot112 (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Not done. The injuries include those that suffered various reactions sometimes well after the attack.--MONGO (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Why are the 2,000+ deaths directly related to Asbestos from the terrorist Attacks not included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.95.120 (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Badguy10 (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)The 911 attack was a life changing change for everyone and the whole world it made us way more connected in a way to become for safe for eachother.

Badguy10 (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Dawnseeker2000 17:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ——SN54129 16:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

How is {{for|the calendar dates}} unnecessary? There would be people looking for the dates not realising this event. Oh and btw please {{Re|GOLDIEM J}} tag me in your replies just no one's been tagging me lately. Thank you. GOLDIEM J (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I have given you a comprehensive reply to your same query on my personal Talk page - although your original query should have been on here. It is totally unnecessary to state "people looking for dates not realising this event". Whatever the date format, people all over the world recognise 9/11 as the date of the terrorist attacks on the US. They are hardly going to look at this page, with its heading to find events connected with the 9th November. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add a hatnote for the dates September 11th and November 9th, similar to the hatnote at Seven of Nine. 85.250.37.203 (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. This is already covered by the link to 911 (disambiguation). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I tweaked it slightly, so hopefully it's a little clearer now anyway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm 9/11 was on a Tuesday? Because I’ve seen conflicting information saying it was a Wednesday. — LissanX (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/monthly.html?year=2001&month=9&country=1.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

There needs to be a section that points to opposing views of the science behind building collapse. Architect s and Engineers for 911 Truth have compelling evidence based on solid scientific facts that fire alone could not have collapsed the buildings. WWW.AE911TRUTH.ORG AMG 04:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

AE911TRUTH is not a reliable source and it would be inappropriate to include that information here. There isn’t a substantive debate about the cause of the collapse. —AdamF in MO (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

please read wp:rs and wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

AE911truth is a VERY reliable source, in fact I am member no. 300 out of a current membership of around 3000 worldwide.

To be a member you have to be a licensed engineer or architect with substantial professional experience.

The members of AE911TRUTH include some very high profile and world renowned practitioners who KNOW, simply from the manner of the THREE building collapses that simply could NOT have been due fires overheating the steel frames. A fire induced collapse is extremely rare and has none of the explosive characteristics of all three of the WTC collapses. PaulWM (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

We go with what wp:RS say, so unless you ahve been published by RS your views fail wp:or. Also https://home.akitabox.com/blog/historical-building-design-failures.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

At least that's a change from AE911's previous assertion that steel-framed buildings have never collapsed from fire-induced effects. Who are these "renowned" practitioners? I've never seen any independently notable professionals among AE911 people, and possession of basic professional credentials doesn't make someone an expert. Acroterion (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 8:46 AM. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 28#8:46 AM until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ComplexRational (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Every article on Wikipedia should be neutral. Why is the terrorists excluded from the death toll and listed separate?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.180.10.21 (talk • contribs) 05:07, June 29, 2020 (UTC)

For the same reason that many war and battle articles have separate casualty figures for each side and then civilians. Noe do I see how this is a Neutrality issue. Nor are they excluded, as 2,996 is not 2,977.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 11-S. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#11-S until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The sentence below is awkwardly worded. Perhaps it should be split into two sentences.

"Wall Street was closed until September 17, and the U.S. and Canadian civilian airspaces until September 13." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.146.91 (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Y Changed, I guess. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

citation 312 is a dead link, also tied to a weasel word sentence 75.60.103.206 (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I have perfected the link, but it is a fair summery.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Apart from the apparent grammar issue (Islamic) Just because they are Muslims does not mean that they were attacking the trade center for 'Islamic Supremacy' Why can't we just use 'Terrorist Organization'

Please forgive any misspelling, as this was written on an iPhone --246700Sarhan (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Because RS say they were Islamist Terrorists, they were doing it for a ideology.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Once again couldn't we just say they are terrorists? because they were, and their ideology does not matter. They once again they didn't do it for "Islamic supremacy" even if y'all refuse to remove the islam part, at least make it grammatically correct by using 'Islamic'

--246700Sarhan (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

RS think it does, moreover we do tend to say who and why in other articles about terror.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Please provide links to where RS says that Al-Queda was doing it for Islamic Supremacy. --246700Sarhan (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

We do not say "Islamic Supremacy".Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Please provide links to where RS says that Al-Queda was doing it for their ideology. --246700Sarhan (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Read the motives section, and check the links there.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Once again just because Bin Laden happened to be Muslim, that does not mean it was Islamic Terrorism. Along with the obvious Islamist Terrorist grammatical error, this article needs to be changed to remove the parts that call it an idelogically charged attack on America. Here is a link to prove Islamic is proper grammar, unlike Islamist, while it says it can be used interchangeably, it rolls off the tongue and sounds proper. I am not a British Person, unlike you- but I do believe that Islamic is more proper than Islamist. https://cgpolicy.org/multimedia/islamic-vs-islamist-in-the-fight-against-terror/

--246700Sarhan (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Islamist does not mean Islamic or Muslim, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/islamist.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Islamist does not sound correct. But who am I but a mere student? Islamic sounds correct to me, but if according to you (and because you're older you are always correct) Islamist is correct, I'll back down. Islamic and Islamist can be used interchangeably, but I think for now we should drop this. Islamic would make more sense in my small little brain, but in your gigantic British brain, Islamist is the correct pronunciation, so I guess I'll drop it. --246700Sarhan (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

They're different things. An Islamist is an adherent of Islamism (see the article). All Islamists are Islamic, but not all Muslims are Islamists. Antandrus (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I removed the distinguish template that has links that read "November 9" and "September 11". This is because September 11 and November 9 are on the disambiguation page, so that way it doesn't make this too redundant. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I also changed the hatnote and made some facts that there are other September 11 attacks on the September 11 attacks (disambiguation) page. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Should this article treat deaths after 9/11 (cancer causing early death) equivalently to those who died on 9/11? Apparently more people have died in this manner: https://6abc.com/amp/911-illness-deaths-after-new-york-firefighter/6418931/

I am thinking some of the stats in the infobox could be delineated by type of death. It is not revisionism, it is very much murders by terrorists too. Hemingways pipe (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

No. The deaths are due to cancer from exposure to the collapsed building materials. While that might be worth mentioning as a separate effect, I would not tally it along with the immediate deaths as a result of the direct terrorist actions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The attack on Pearl Harbor has nothing to do with the September 11 attacks. I don't see any reason to compare those casualties. This is not a YouTube video that uses random facts to make the content more interesting/shocking. I do understand that both happened in the USA but Pearl Harbor was a war, not terrorism. Unfortunately, there have been other examples of terrorism in the USA. For example, the Oklahoma City bombing killed more people than the attack on Pearl Harbor; why don't we put it as an example? If you don't mind I will delete this line from the article. --ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, the last fact was not correct but it doesn't change much. --ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)